Museum of the American Revolution: Falling Out of Valley Forge and Marching Into Philadelphia

If you don’t walk out of Philadelphia's newest jewel, the new Museum of the American Revolution (MOAR) with a new understanding of and appreciation for the sacrifices people suffered in order to settle the colonies and fight for independence, in the process creating a new nation and becoming a new player on the world political and economic scene,you've missed one of the main points of the experience.  (Click here for a visual tour).

This past weekend I had the privilege of attending a founding-members only preview grand opening of the new Museum. I left with a renewed sense of awe that, despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles and odds stacked against the American colonists in taking on the most powerful and wealthiest empire in the world, and the sheer luck - and unlikely alliances  - that emerged to help us prevail, We the People somehow accomplished something unbelievable and unheard of – a republic form of government in which the people rule themselves.

We may have drafted the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776, but we didn’t gain true freedom until 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, and even then for some time thereafter the greatest focus was on the rights of each of the thirteen colonies. Having just thrown off a far-away powerful central government (a monarchy), Americans were in no mood to even consider the kind of strong central government eventually framed by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. This museum tells these tales, and many other, lesser-known facts and stories surrounding the American Revolution.

The path that the MOAR took to arrive at its new home at Third and Walnut in Philadelphia, and the length of time it took to accomplish it, lasted for more years than the actual revolution itself, and similarly, was no small feat against many obstacles over a long span of time. The gorgeous facility is a testament to the tenacity and dedication of its champions in finding a home for it, getting it built, and finally, at long last, dramatically displaying the artifacts and paying appropriate tribute to the War for Independence.

Efforts to bring the Museum to our area here in the suburbs date back as far as 1999 when the National Park Service and the MOAR (formerly known as the American Revolution Center, or ARC) collaborated on plans for a museum next to Valley Forge National Historical Park’s (VFNHP) welcome center.

In 2005, however, the ARC announced plans for its own museum and conference center two miles away. Philanthroper (and new chairman of the museum’s board of directors) H.F.”Gerry” Lenfest was brought in to try to move the project forward. He personally ponied up the $4.1M to purchase 78 acres of privately owned land adjacent to the VFNHP from the St. Gabe’s protectorate (Archdiocese of Philadelphia) in Lower Providence Township the day after the LPT Planning Commission approved the ARC’s request to rezone the parcel to allowed development beyond a museum.

The reasons for pulling the plug on the VFNHP location were referenced as park service red tape, federal fundraising concerns – the ARC board was nervous about the Park Service’s difficulties funding the maintenance of property and collections they already owned – and size restrictions on the proposed building footprint.

toppling a statue of King George III

However, the residents of primarily the Audubon portion of the Township (and other nonresidents outside the Township) were opposed to the development of the 78 acres. What soured many Audubon residents at the time on the project was the addition of a hotel and conference center and several small retail options to the project, added to help fund the cost of running the Museum and preserve the collection going forward. Also, at the time, the new four-way cloverleaf at 422 was just a fantasy, and traffic in Audubon, already difficult and of necessity directed through Audubon for access to and from the Route 422/Oaks, was envisioned to only worsen with the addition of the traffic the Museum would undoubtedly bring. Zoning challenges and legal battles ensued.

After spending millions of dollars developing plans and fighting in court, and years’ worth of time and effort, in 2009 Lenfest and the rest of the executives on the board realized that they had to rise above the local political squabbles and courtroom drama – that getting this long-envisioned project built and open to the public was of far more importance than the longer-term legal and political efforts of trying to convince a suburban community that it should want a project of national significance that would put it on the map and bring jobs, tax and tourist dollars to its coffers.

Lenfest and Ed Rendell brokered a deal for a land swap:  the ARC would abandon their plans to build the museum in or near VFNHP and moved the project to Center City. The new museum would be located at 3rd and Chestnut Street in downtown Philadelphia, within a 55-acre federal park space, on the site of the former welcome center built for the 1976 bicentennial, in exchange for the National Park Service receiving ownership of the 78-acre parcel of private land owned by the American Revolution Center within the boundary of VFNHP.

(Many, many articles [including my own] have been written detailing the headaches of trying to work with the National Park Service, and in trying to get the project built here in LP, which I won’t revisit here – Google or check out some of the links at the bottom of this article if you want more information).

Locally, I played a role in this effort circa 2008-2009 as a member of and chair of our Zoning Hearing Board that conducted many evenings’ worth of hearings, listening to hours of witness testimony and reviewing over one hundred exhibits in a validity challenge to the zoning of the 78-acre parcel. At one point there were a total of ten attorneys representing various parties in the hearings!

 Also, one of our current township supervisors, Colleen Eckman, had a starring role, arguably launching her local political career on this one “not in my backyard” issue, after becoming a vocal opponent of the project (which would have been located not far from her home in Audubon) and also serving as one of the witnesses in the zoning validity challenge hearings questioning the proper zoning of the parcel.

So – at long last, in 2017, here it is and here we are. Lower Providence's loss is Philly's gain. Much has already  (here, here,  here,  here,  here,  here, and here -- both in the NY Times and Philly Inquirer) been published about the Museum since it opened, detailing its displays and collection.  Maybe it's just that as a member of DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution, who donated the painting "Siege at Yorktown" to the Museum) I had more than a casual interest in the subject matter, but I found it totally absorbing and, of course, long overdue. Most importantly, take the time to go see this wonderful addition to the Philadelphia historical scene in person. Consider becoming a member to help support the museum going forward. Check out the gift shop, well-stocked with items not typically found in tourist traps, to which a section is devoted specifically to items about the Continental Army’s brutal winter at Valley Forge.

And last, but certainly not least, the next time you feel defeated about something, allow yourself to be inspired by the story of We the People to think about how much American success in the American Revolution illustrates the impossible odds that can be overcome and the things that can be accomplished by brave, determined people with tenacity and the courage of their convictions.  


http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20070629_Critics_voice_concerns_over_nonhistoric_extras__Battle_brewing_over_museum.html

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/07/land-swap-moves-american-revolution-center-out-valley-forge-national-historical-park

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=877

https://www.lincolninstitute.org/archives/somedays/070730.php

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OIvAGHL_UYIJ:usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2008-04-08-valley-forge-museum_n.htm&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0

http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/article/PV/20080813/NEWS01/308139971                                                                                                                                                                             

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/inga_saffron/american-revolution-museum-architecture-stern-inga-saffron.html?utm_campaign=Philly.com+Facebook+Account&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=Philly.com+Facebook+Account&cid=Philly.com+Facebook

http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/MP/20090410/NEWS01/304109982 )

Gerry Lenfest at 4-19-17 ribbon cutting

Notes from the campaign trail

You might have noticed I haven't posted anything in about six weeks, and there's a good reason for that. Running for elected office of any kind is, if done correctly, time consuming. Let me just say that my home needs a thorough cleaning, the laundry pile needs tackling, and my grocery list is approaching the size of the federal tax code, so you know I have been focused on the race!

One thing my running mate, Jill Zimmerman and I did was sit for interviews with the Times Herald. While I was misquoted and/or quoted out of context in a couple places, overall I was happy with how it went. I believe the print version is available today.

Just knocking on hundreds of doors to introduce yourself to voters and ask for their support takes every spare hour you have, but it's so important. How else do you have any idea what is on people's minds? Jill and I have spent the last 8 weeks or so traversing the ten voting districts that comprise Lower Providence. We believe that elected officials should listen to, not dictate to, its residents.

My understanding is that during the primary, one of our opponents, Jason Sorgini considered this a 'waste of time' and that he 'doesn't see the value in it'. Even though he claims he’s knocking, not one home out of the hundreds we've visited has ever mentioned that he had been by, which is unheard of in a contested race. We've not seen so much as one of his door cards. We have actually crossed paths with the other candidate, Kelbin Carolina, however and seen evidence that HE’S been hitting the pavement. I have to wonder why Sorgini doesn't want to hear what issues are of concern to ALL our residents, not just those he surrounds himself with.

Anyway, some miscellaneous observations from the campaign trail:

• If I and Jill are elected, it will be the first time in Lower Providence’s 200+ year history that we’ve had a three women to two men majority on the Board. Not that this is a reason to vote for us, but I have a funny feeling that we ladies can get a lot more positive things done than the guys have.

• I’m aware of emails going around to voters from sitting supervisor Rick Brown, encouraging voters to support his candidate by bullet voting for him and claiming that I have ‘duped voters once again’. Rick, if anyone is duping voters, it’s you with your never-heard-from-before-2011 candidate trying to dupe voters into thinking he’s ‘dedicated’ and ‘committed’ (yes this is the same guy who’s so dedicated and committed he can’t manage to find time to attend township meetings or knock on doors). Heck, half of what comes out of his mouth came off my campaign literature or website. Why buy the copy when you can have the original?

• Several contested races have generated a ton of mail, and this one is no exception. If the stakes weren't so high, some of it would be laughable. Sorgini attempted to frame legal opinions rendered after hearings he did not attend & has no personal knowledge of as somehow faulty, and it's clear to me he has no idea what he's talking about. Perhaps he needs to add one more degree to the three he already has – a law degree.

For example, one case he referenced in his latest mailer hinged on several legal issues, one of which was the legal definition of abandonment. Even though he attended none of the public hearings and heard no testimony upon which to arrive at a conclusion, he attempts to blame me alone for a decision arrived at by a board of five after hours of painstaking hearings, mountains of evidence and oral argument, and exhaustive review of applicable case law. Mr. Baird and his buddy Rick, at taxpayer expense, appealed this decision twice; it was denied twice and is now on appellate review that is substantially narrower in scope on only one of the several issues initially raised.

 Try asking Sorgini what any of the other complex legal issues raised in this particular case were. I bet he can't name one without first getting it, and regurgitating it, from someone else.

 In another case regarding billboards, it’s important to note that state law prohibits a municipality from legislating against specific uses such as billboards, adult entertainment, cell towers or mobile home parks. Bottom line, our zoning must accommodate these things.

The case we were presented with raised the issue that our ordinance was defective because it constructively did not provide for billboards at all. We had to cure the ordinance and rule on the application. We elected to allow them on the outskirts of the township along 422 where the least number of our residents would be subjected to them, rather than adding more along Egypt road, where a larger number of our residents WOULD have to look at them.

We have a duty on our boards and commissions to be fair to the applicant property owner and surrounding residents, and, in the instance of the Zoning Hearing Board, can only render decisions that comply with state and municipal law and case law, based on what's entered onto the record, or we risk being overturned on appeal. The resident who was on the losing end of this particular decision, Ted Baird, has (besides sour grapes) a powerful friend – Rick Brown – who’s arguably backing Mr. Sorgini for his own political survival – and Baird and Brown are undoubtedly where this version came from, since Sorgini himself was never there. No decision I was a part of rendering was ever overturned.

Sorgini’s arguments about the rest of the cases he mentioned – including the sewer lawsuit – is similarly defective. Yes LP was sued by the regional sewer authority, but it sued the sewer authority first. The regional sewer authority countersued.

• Some may wonder why my running mate and I declined to attend the candidate forum held on Oct. 24. From my perspective, any event sponsored by a group started in the early 80's by supervisor Rick Brown, (who has come out publicly in support of Sorgini), and which is a group populated by Mr. Brown's cronies (some of whom were on the losing end of the above-referenced case, among others), cannot possibly be UNbiased.

Instead of asking the League of Women Voters to sponsor such an event, this group clearly only held the event to turn it into the Jason Sorgini show, and when you also consider:

• it was held on township property (when the township has historically been apolitical)
•  that long-standing policy against political broadcasts was thrown out the window to allow for rebroadcast of the forum on our cable channel
•  AND that it was all paid for using taxpayer funds

               it was definitely something we did not want any part of.

Anyway, win or lose, it’s been an adventure that’s been both rewarding and trying at times. There are other aspects I’ll write about after Tuesday. Either way the best part for me has been getting to know our residents and our community better, and I’ve made some terrific new friends as a result.

Whoever you support, wherever you are, whichever party you identify with, come out and vote on Tuesday.

Fair is Fair

Isn't it part of the American way that those accused are entitled to face their accuser? That people should be accountable for the things they say and do? Well, maybe so, but apparently not here...not if you're Rick Brown.

Mr. Brown, a current and past supervisor, went on record at the Aug. 24 Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting as voting against approval of the invoice submitted for July by the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) solicitor, relating to legal work regarding the American Revolution Center (ARC).  He insinuated that my solicitor and the ZHB that I chair were somehow improperly billing the township for this work. Seems Rick couldn't understand why on earth there would be charges for a case that had been all over the news as abandoning its efforts to build a museum here and relocating to Philadelphia.

Maybe Rick has been at this a tad too long, because apparently his memory is starting to go. The reason there was an invoice was because...of Rick himself.

Rick submitted an amicus ("friend of the court") brief in July in that still-open litigation, asking the judge in that case to allow his personal opinion to be considered along with the rest of the record. And that's fine, I respect his right to do what he feels he must. But he filed his brief 4 days AFTER the ARC announced that they were leaving...and he never mentioned that he filed this brief in the BOS meeting while he was strenuously objecting to the payment of the invoice. Surely Rick, with all his years of experience as a township supervisor and a former ZHB member himself,  knew that his brief had to be reviewed and responded to by the ZHB solicitor and that of course he would bill for that, as he should.

Why would Rick do that? FYI,  Rick already testified at length in the ARC hearing...his position and opinions are already on the record. Rick cost the township taxpayers an extra $4,093 in July and August this year solely because he filed that brief. I don't know about you but that's money I'd rather have go to our parks program or some other more worthy cause than addressing a brief that didn't have to be filed.

When I showed up at the September 17 Board meeting on behalf of the ZHB and our solicitor to ask Rick about his sudden memory lapse, why he seemed to be intentionally misleading the residents, why he seemed to be insinuating that the ZHB (and by extension, me) and its solicitor had somehow done something improper, what do you think Rick did?

He ran. Literally, ran out of the room, left a Board of Supervisors meeting while it was still in progress, stating that he didn't have to listen to me (which I find pretty strange considering he's usually very interested in talking and trying to tell me how to run the ZHB). Where's the accountability for the things he said in a public forum on August 24? He probably didn't want to answer, because he doesn't HAVE a good answer.

On top of that, he probably should have abstained from voting on invoices related to a case he's attempting to become a party to. It just screams
"conflict of interest".

So, how 'bout it, Rick? Want a do-over?